TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 23, 2009 10:29:32 GMT -5
Who is Harangody on this team? Good question, and that is why I get a little puzzled every time I read on this board the rampant criticism of Brey and Co about how they are so soft, do not play defense, have no athletes, etc. You could easily argue (and result supports it) they are more physical (Harangody) than us. We need to look in the mirror, we play like ND. I am not suggesting you cannot find success being a finesse team, I am just saying it is time to recognize what we are right now. No, no we do not. Notre Dame doesn't play defense. We do, though we're obviously didn't play it well last game. After last night's game KenPom has us at 25th overall in adjusted defensive efficiency. We're allowing 89.3 points per 100 possessions. Notre Dame is 166th in defensive efficiency. They're allowing 100.3 points per 100 possessions. So let's cool it a little bit with the Mike Brey and Notre Dame comparisons. Also, JT3 doesn't wear a mock turtle neck to games.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 23, 2009 10:32:58 GMT -5
Except we led all the way against UConn, and it wasn't like we out-toughed UConn. No one is saying we can't win games, but we are saying that when you look at the teams that have beaten us, there is a noticable lack of toughness in each of these games. And when we win, we win because of our precise offense and our finesse game. Its hard to argue with the system that JTIII in place, but this particular team does lack some toughness. What's a bit more troubling is that the couple of guys that were on last year's team that did give us a toughness edge have transferred. If you look at Julian, Jeremiah and Macklin, they all had some toughness, but they really lacked the skill to run our offense. Obviously, the jury is still out on Julian, but he really seems to struggle at times, as eveidenced by getting stripped by a big man at the top of the key last night and his difficulty making passes on backdoor cuts. Last night was the first time I've ever seen him complete one. What really shows is that over the last year, we've lost a lot of players who did give us an edge. Jon, Pat and even Roy were pretty tough players both mentally and physically. They didn't get rattled when we were down and made good decisions with the ball. Pat was a perfect example of being a tough player, but demonstrating the skill necessary to run our offense. He blocked shots, rebounded and got in people's faces when the team needed an enforcer. And that's why I'm really bothered by Sapp getting benched down the stretch. Although he has struggled with his shot, his shot selection has gotten better. He drilled an open three and only took one other shot. Still, he made crisp passes, played defense and didn't have any turnovers. In fact, he seemed to be the only guy that wanted to win last night. Sapp's experience is also something that cannot be discounted. And he seems to have been taking steps to get his shot back. He's not forcing things, but taking good shots when they come to him. What else would you want from your most experienced player? We do need to be honest about our team, and its missing something. WVU didn't have any big man of note, but the book it sout on Monroe; if you get physical with him, it makes him uncomfortable. There's a reason why Samardo Samuels outplayed Greg whenever they faced off. Obviously Greg is a phenomenal talent, but that is definitely one of his major weaknesses. Look at last night and the Pitt game in particular. We've grown up a lot thi season, but we've got to grow up some more. And toughen up too. We are >< You hit it right on the head. Nobody is saying chuck the offense, or that we are no good. toughness and rebounding are some essential traits for winning basketball. if we are going to act like we are a contending team, we need to be honest about the reality of that notion. And how far off we may be. but last night's game against WVU really exposed are weaknesses. moreso than the Duke and Pitt games. we literally got punked by WVU when it mattered most down the stretch and we did not fight back, we walked away from the fight. Thats a sign of lacking mental toughness. When our offense is clicking and we are hitting everything, we are great (see the Syracuse and UCONN games). But then again, what team isn't when everything is going their way. Problem is, most games everything won't go your way. you are going to have adversity during the course of the game. thats where toughness comes in. Thats what we are lacking. Thats where we need to grow. Then maybe we're saying the same thing - in my view, this is 100% mental and correctable.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 23, 2009 10:42:50 GMT -5
We are >< You hit it right on the head. Nobody is saying chuck the offense, or that we are no good. toughness and rebounding are some essential traits for winning basketball. if we are going to act like we are a contending team, we need to be honest about the reality of that notion. And how far off we may be. but last night's game against WVU really exposed are weaknesses. moreso than the Duke and Pitt games. we literally got punked by WVU when it mattered most down the stretch and we did not fight back, we walked away from the fight. Thats a sign of lacking mental toughness. When our offense is clicking and we are hitting everything, we are great (see the Syracuse and UCONN games). But then again, what team isn't when everything is going their way. Problem is, most games everything won't go your way. you are going to have adversity during the course of the game. thats where toughness comes in. Thats what we are lacking. Thats where we need to grow. Then maybe we're saying the same thing - in my view, this is 100% mental and correctable. Not really. Yes we could be mentally tougher. But we will never be physically tougher. We will never be a great, scrappy, rebounding team. Why? Because of the personnel. We aren't built that way. Its not in our makeup. Greg Monroe is not all of sudden going to be an inside presence like Zo or Ewing. Austin Freeman isn't going to be come Perry McDonald all of sudden on the rebounding tip. OUr team gave up at the end last night. Even if they didn't give up, they still would have lost. Our team didn't give up against Pitt. They just lost. Same with Duke. We just lost. Because of our deciciences, personnel-wise.
|
|
FrazierFanatic
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,574
Member is Online
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 23, 2009 11:30:26 GMT -5
We can rebound better, but we will never be a strong rebounding team. We can certainly be better defensively than we were last night. What is disconcerting is that we do not seem capable of consistently controlling tempo and pace, and turning these games into ones that play to our strengths, rather than our weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by Hoya TMF on Jan 23, 2009 11:55:19 GMT -5
KHoyaNYC, I agree to a certain extent. I'm not sure we have the bodies to keep a team like Pittburgh off the boards. We were kind of outmatched at every position that game. Still, agaisnt Syracuse we did a much better job at rebounding the ball, agaisnt a tall and wide frontcourt. Last night did not have to do with physical dimesions, but physicality. They don't have any tall or wide bodies. They jsut went after the ball more and better than we did. That can be changed. And its goignt o ahve to change. Sure we'll be overmatched in some games, but there are lots of teams in the Big East that can't match our size. the Marquette's, Villanova's and West Virginia's of the world. If we let these teams beat us to the baords, then there's a serious problem. If we let these teams play ahrder and scrappier than we do, then there's a problem. You can run a precision offense and still have a scrappy team. John Beilin did it for years at WVU.
These kids just need to be mroe scrappy and make better decisions. I still don't udnerstand why you take three straight three pointers when we're down 43-45 and a two will tie it for us. Those shots came early and without working it inside first. It's these little things that make all the difference. It killed our momentum, and gave WVU an opportunity to retake control after we worked so hard to get it.
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by mapei on Jan 23, 2009 11:59:58 GMT -5
What I'm wondering is whether we have enough quickness. WVU beat us to every position on the floor last night, and beat us to the ball. I'm not sure that's ALL heart and desire. Chris is quick, and so is DaJuan, but no one else, really.
We weren't quick last year, either, but we didn't need to be because we were experienced, poised, and disciplined.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 23, 2009 12:04:42 GMT -5
Then maybe we're saying the same thing - in my view, this is 100% mental and correctable. Not really. Yes we could be mentally tougher. But we will never be physically tougher. We will never be a great, scrappy, rebounding team. Why? Because of the personnel. We aren't built that way. Its not in our makeup. Greg Monroe is not all of sudden going to be an inside presence like Zo or Ewing. Austin Freeman isn't going to be come Perry McDonald all of sudden on the rebounding tip. OUr team gave up at the end last night. Even if they didn't give up, they still would have lost. Our team didn't give up against Pitt. They just lost. Same with Duke. We just lost. Because of our deciciences, personnel-wise. Physical toughness isn't our problem though. Who cares if our players aren't phsyically tough? While yes we will struggle with teams like Pitt, we have never been physically tough under JTIII, and thats fine. The 2007 team was not physically tough, better offensiver rebounding team, but certainly wouldn't consider them a physically tough team. We didn't to Duke OR Pitt because of personnel. We would matchup better with Pitt with a different personnel but thats not why we lost. We lost because we couldn't make shots and we weren't boxing out. We lost that game because of mental toughness. Duke we certainly didn't lose because of personnel, to suggest so is crazy. We matchup perfectly with Duke, we lost because we played @cameron. If you want JTIII to totally change the way he wants his team to play the games that fine, but if that ever does happen(which it won't obviously) don't come to hoyatalk complaining about things we would have given up by playing more "physical" and with more "physical players", or how we would never advance in the NCAA tournament with that kind of play, because teams like that don't.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 23, 2009 12:09:49 GMT -5
Not really. Yes we could be mentally tougher. But we will never be physically tougher. We will never be a great, scrappy, rebounding team. Why? Because of the personnel. We aren't built that way. Its not in our makeup. Greg Monroe is not all of sudden going to be an inside presence like Zo or Ewing. Austin Freeman isn't going to be come Perry McDonald all of sudden on the rebounding tip. OUr team gave up at the end last night. Even if they didn't give up, they still would have lost. Our team didn't give up against Pitt. They just lost. Same with Duke. We just lost. Because of our deciciences, personnel-wise. Physical toughness isn't our problem though. Who cares if our players aren't phsyically tough? While yes we will struggle with teams like Pitt, we have never been physically tough under JTIII, and thats fine. The 2007 team was not physically tough, better offensiver rebounding team, but certainly wouldn't consider them a physically tough team. We didn't to Duke OR Pitt because of personnel. We would matchup better with Pitt with a different personnel but thats not why we lost. We lost because we couldn't make shots and we weren't boxing out. We lost that game because of mental toughness. Duke we certainly didn't lose because of personnel, to suggest so is crazy. We matchup perfectly with Duke, we lost because we played @cameron. If you want JTIII to totally change the way he wants his team to play the games that fine, but if that ever does happen(which it won't obviously) don't come to hoyatalk complaining about things we would have given up by playing more "physical" and with more "physical players", or how we would never advance in the NCAA tournament with that kind of play, because teams like that don't. You are obviously taking this personal. If you want to have a debate about this, i'm all for it. Read the thread again, when you are more emotionally stable. Again, nobody is saying JTIII is a bad coach and we need to totally change everything we are doing. There are major areas we need to improve upon. If we don't, we will see the same results we saw last night for the rest of the season, where we flat out get our butts whupped in all facets of the game and we mentally fold because of it. Some things can be corrected for this season. Some things can't be corrected for this season.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 23, 2009 12:16:05 GMT -5
Physical toughness isn't our problem though. Who cares if our players aren't phsyically tough? While yes we will struggle with teams like Pitt, we have never been physically tough under JTIII, and thats fine. The 2007 team was not physically tough, better offensiver rebounding team, but certainly wouldn't consider them a physically tough team. We didn't to Duke OR Pitt because of personnel. We would matchup better with Pitt with a different personnel but thats not why we lost. We lost because we couldn't make shots and we weren't boxing out. We lost that game because of mental toughness. Duke we certainly didn't lose because of personnel, to suggest so is crazy. We matchup perfectly with Duke, we lost because we played @cameron. If you want JTIII to totally change the way he wants his team to play the games that fine, but if that ever does happen(which it won't obviously) don't come to hoyatalk complaining about things we would have given up by playing more "physical" and with more "physical players", or how we would never advance in the NCAA tournament with that kind of play, because teams like that don't. You are obviously taking this personal. If you want to have a debate about this, i'm all for it. Read the thread again, when you are more emotionally stable. Again, nobody is saying JTIII is a bad coach and we need to totally change everything we are doing. There are major areas we need to improve upon. If we don't, we will see the same results we saw last night for the rest of the season, where we flat out get our butts whupped in all facets of the game and we mentally fold because of it. Some things can be corrected for this season. Some things can't be corrected for this season. I have reread the thread, by saying we need different types of players is to say JTIII needs to change everything he is doing. We lost because of mental toughness, which is what we need to improve and I have been saying this all season. But we don't have anything that can't be fixed this season, or something "missing" as you have said.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 23, 2009 12:21:48 GMT -5
Agreed sleepy.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 23, 2009 12:38:59 GMT -5
You are obviously taking this personal. If you want to have a debate about this, i'm all for it. Read the thread again, when you are more emotionally stable. Again, nobody is saying JTIII is a bad coach and we need to totally change everything we are doing. There are major areas we need to improve upon. If we don't, we will see the same results we saw last night for the rest of the season, where we flat out get our butts whupped in all facets of the game and we mentally fold because of it. Some things can be corrected for this season. Some things can't be corrected for this season. I have reread the thread, by saying we need different types of players is to say JTIII needs to change everything he is doing. We lost because of mental toughness, which is what we need to improve and I have been saying this all season. But we don't have anything that can't be fixed this season, or something "missing" as you have said. Really. hmmm So if we were mentally tough, we beat Pitt? No So if we were mentally tough, we beat WVU last night? No So if we were mentally tough, we beat Tenn? No So if we were mentally tough, we beat ND? No I wont tell you to re-read the thread, because you won't understand anyway. So i'll explain it again for you. Again, we need physical play, hustle and bustle, and rebounding and a presence in the paint. Nobody on this team can provide that for us or has shown they can do that up to this point on a consistent basis. Let alone, we have trouble with quick, athletic teams. You don't have that, you are going to have games like last night against good teams. You aren't going to be a great team. We need more pieces. This team isn't built for the Final Four, even if everybody on the roster was mentally tougher. We had two teams that were built to contend for the final 4, and those were the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 teams. You are overly sensitive and being melodramatic. Us needing to improve on personnel does not mean we need to chuck the entire regime and our players are no good. We have the offensive guys. We need some role players that can add a dimension we don't have and still somehow fit the Princeton mold. And JTIII needs to recruit them.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 23, 2009 13:05:29 GMT -5
We aren't ever going to be Zo and Michael Graham and Perry McDonald...no.
But this team can rebound, can play tougher. And since they have other skills, that should and will be enough to win games.
It's a weakness -- the issue I have is the thought that it is a fatal weakness. These guys don't need to be great at those things, just better.
My other issue was with the idea that you can't find guys who can play in the offense and be tough. I was watching winning teams from the last few years where we defended, rebounded, got loose balls and ran the offense. I must have missed how soft Jeff and Roy and Jon and Pat and Jessie were.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 23, 2009 13:25:14 GMT -5
Way, I agree with your original post on this thread. In particular, we have to recruit some bangers and work them into our system.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jan 23, 2009 13:25:28 GMT -5
We aren't ever going to be Zo and Michael Graham and Perry McDonald...no. But this team can rebound, can play tougher. And since they have other skills, that should and will be enough to win games. It's a weakness -- the issue I have is the thought that it is a fatal weakness. These guys don't need to be great at those things, just better. My other issue was with the idea that you can't find guys who can play in the offense and be tough. I was watching winning teams from the last few years where we defended, rebounded, got loose balls and ran the offense. I must have missed how soft Jeff and Roy and Jon and Pat and Jessie were. Again, you guys just run with this. Where did I say you CAN'T find guys to hustle and run the princeton? I SAID we need some guys right now, and they need to be recruited. Where did I say JTIII needs to change everything? lol What I'm saying is, we don't have THAT this year. We don't have a Jeff Green. We don't have Jon Wallace. We don't have a Roy. We don't have a Pat. Heck, we don't have a Tyler Crawford who was a leader on this team in terms of toughness, yet rarely played. All of those guys had a particulary weakness(es) in their respective games. Yet all of those guys had some intangibles aside from their talents that was crucial to the rebirth of this program and winning basketball. Those guys showed that during their freshman years, even if it was in glimpses. Not to mention Pat and Jeff could be physical at times. Not to mention, Roy was a threat defensively in the paint. You can coach fundamentals and refine them, but you can't coach intangibles. You can't coach kids to a have skill-sets and personalities they don't have. You recruit kids who have them. Right now, we got some talented players on offense who can't rebound or provide an interior presence in the paint. that is the makings of a perimeter oriented and finesse teams. that is how we are currently constructed, personnel-wise those types only get so far. we need some hustle and bustle guys, even if they are role players to complitment and add much needed dimensions to this current group of players.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 23, 2009 13:39:37 GMT -5
You asked:
"Is it possible to recruit guys that can fit into a Princeton offense, but at the same time have some hustle and bustle, bang and the ability to rebound? "
I answered.
I think it is a weird question, though, only seriously posed if you're only considering a small subset of the last four and a half years.
|
|
lurkerhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by lurkerhoya on Jan 23, 2009 13:45:01 GMT -5
Unlike some of the posts I've read about our rebounding, losing Macklin is a bigger deal than some people think. He didn't start off his career the way we thought he would and he never quite made the jump we thought he would in his 2nd year.
But, I still think he was ready to be a 10-10 guy this year, the second 10 being what this team is sorely lacking right now.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 23, 2009 13:46:47 GMT -5
Unlike some of the posts I've read about our rebounding, losing Macklin is a bigger deal than some people think. He didn't start off his career the way we thought he would and he never quite made the jump we thought he would in his 2nd year. But, I still think he was ready to be a 10-10 guy this year, the second 10 being what this team is sorely lacking right now. The first ten being his free throw shooting percentage?
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Jan 23, 2009 13:53:45 GMT -5
Unlike some of the posts I've read about our rebounding, losing Macklin is a bigger deal than some people think. He didn't start off his career the way we thought he would and he never quite made the jump we thought he would in his 2nd year. But, I still think he was ready to be a 10-10 guy this year, the second 10 being what this team is sorely lacking right now. The first ten being his free throw shooting percentage? You hit that softball right out of the park. Well played. Is still think that if we had Marc Egerson and Josh Thornton, we would have the Big East title locked up by now.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 23, 2009 13:54:05 GMT -5
We aren't ever going to be Zo and Michael Graham and Perry McDonald...no. But this team can rebound, can play tougher. And since they have other skills, that should and will be enough to win games. It's a weakness -- the issue I have is the thought that it is a fatal weakness. These guys don't need to be great at those things, just better. My other issue was with the idea that you can't find guys who can play in the offense and be tough. I was watching winning teams from the last few years where we defended, rebounded, got loose balls and ran the offense. I must have missed how soft Jeff and Roy and Jon and Pat and Jessie were. Again, you guys just run with this. Where did I say you CAN'T find guys to hustle and run the princeton? I SAID we need some guys right now, and they need to be recruited. Where did I say JTIII needs to change everything? lol What I'm saying is, we don't have THAT this year. We don't have a Jeff Green. We don't have Jon Wallace. We don't have a Roy. We don't have a Pat. Heck, we don't have a Tyler Crawford who was a leader on this team in terms of toughness, yet rarely played. All of those guys had a particulary weakness(es) in their respective games. Yet all of those guys had some intangibles aside from their talents that was crucial to the rebirth of this program and winning basketball. Those guys showed that during their freshman years, even if it was in glimpses. Not to mention Pat and Jeff could be physical at times. Not to mention, Roy was a threat defensively in the paint. You can coach fundamentals and refine them, but you can't coach intangibles. You can't coach kids to a have skill-sets and personalities they don't have. You recruit kids who have them. Right now, we got some talented players on offense who can't rebound or provide an interior presence in the paint. that is the makings of a perimeter oriented and finesse teams. that is how we are currently constructed, personnel-wise those types only get so far. we need some hustle and bustle guys, even if they are role players to complitment and add much needed dimensions to this current group of players. Jeff Green, Jon Wallace and Roy Hibbert, weren't phyisically tough players, they were mentally tough players. While yes they were more imposing in the paint, Summers and Monroe can be just as tough, they have the physical ability they just aren't defensively, right now atleast. Look you can say all you want about how we need a banger, somone to make it tougher in the paint, but the guys on our team, Sims, Monroe, Summers, Vaughn, can all be a much bigger presence in the paint. Every player on this team can "hustle and bustle" more and become more physical players, I think the reason we aren't a more physical team and don't recruit players like Blair or Adrien is because JTIII doesn't want us to be. It has worked so far, and to question it because of one game is silly. Also to answer your question in you other post do we beat those other teams if we are more mentally tough I think we do, maybe not all, but atleast two of them. We didn't lose all those game because we don't have a "banger", and we certainly didn't lose last night because we don't have one. To say so is just ludicris. While obviously a player like Blair or Adriend would have helped us win last night, had Summers or Freeman or Monroe played even 75% as well as they can we would have won as well.
|
|
lurkerhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by lurkerhoya on Jan 23, 2009 13:57:20 GMT -5
Fair enough. Vern made Shaq look like Rick Barry, but...
Tell me we wouldn't love watching Greg run the offense from the high post with Vern shifting between the blocks down low. The two of them controlling the paint on the defensive end, allowing Greg to play further away from the basket without sacrificing rebounding position all the time (His biggest defensive weakness, as far as I'm concerned, but whether this is his lack of understanding yet how to play big-time defense against serious competition or a system flaw I can't quite tell).
The fact is, to me, numbers don't lie. Forget the final score for a minute. At halftime, we were down 5 points somehow despite outshooting WVU something like 48-39 in percentage. Let me say that I HATE HATE HATE FG% as a telling stat. The real stat is closed possessions. How many times did we actually keep them from scoring? This is elementary, but you can shoot 40% over a series of possessions, but still score on every one with offensive rebounding. As Way says, until this team finds the guy/guys who can change those stats, we will continue to shoot 48-50% in games and still lose.
|
|